NYPD's Finest?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

You put an officer of the law in harms way by attempting to assault them with a deadly weapon (THE CAR) ,and you better expect to be shot . A car weighs 3500lbs ,and although it’s not a gun one can easily be crippled or killed by being run over ,struck,or pinned between the car and an other object . If these gentlemen were not up to no good I don’t see why they ran . Cops even under cover will attempt to I.D. themselves .

I see how the recent marriage ,and kids were worked into the tale ,and I think this is done to make a person think geez how could they have been scum bags he just got married and had kids ,as if married people with kids aren’t drug dealers ,murderes ,Or above assaulting the police out of general anger .

42

[quote]Professor X wrote:
brand wrote:
So, they hit him with the car and then ram into a police van twice. Yep, that constitutes a lethal force encounter. Without being there you really can’t judge the guys involved as you don’t know all the circumstances. Monday morning quarterbacking is always easy.

Plain clothes operations are common and have been in the NYPD for a long time. How else are they to observe first hand what goes on in the club?

The number of rounds fired doesn’t really matter. Handguns are not the all powerfull weapons that you see in the movies, especially when having to penetrate an automobile. Once they made the decision to fire their weapons they needed to fire however many rounds it took to achieve the desired outcome. 50 or 5 makes no difference.

What is the desired outcome on someone who isn’t firing back?[/quote]

The desired outcome is the car stopping, which means taking out the driver. Even if the driver didn’t know the guy he hit was a cop, he still tried to kill someone. And regardless of who that person is, they have the right to protect their own life.

It sounds like it went down like this. Undercover officer gets hit by suspects car. Suspects continue to ram van. Suspect then puts car into reverse and directs car into the area where another officer is. Officer in van gets out, opens fire. They continue to fire until car stops. Guy gets out of car, runs away. He wasn’t shot in the back while running away. He could have been.

50 rounds happens pretty fast. We have 5 shooters. We’re talking about semi-auto pistols that have 15+1 rounds. They fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. They weren’t armed with muskets. According to the story, most of the rounds ended up going through the doors of the car. One guy was shot 11 times and is going to live. Another was shot 3 times below the waist. The driver was shot 3 times, one shot to the neck being fatal. And as stated above, one guy managed to get away probably without being shot. 21 bullets hit the car. 50 rounds doesn’t seem like that many when you break it down.

You can’t be that accurate with your shots in a situation like that. I can hit a 6"x6" target with an M-16 variant rifle from 100 yards away, iron sights, consistently. Now, if I was in a very stressful situation, I would be lucky to hit that target from 10 yards away once, with a full mag. Sometimes you need to fire a lot to hit what you are shooting at.

Again, this situation is a shame, but let’s not jump on the cops just yet.

43

[quote]NDM wrote:
The desired outcome is the car stopping, which means taking out the driver. Even if the driver didn’t know the guy he hit was a cop, he still tried to kill someone. And regardless of who that person is, they have the right to protect their own life. [/quote]

Assumption number one. Again, the undercover cop WALKED IN FRONT OF THE MOVING CAR. It isn’t like they ran on the sidewalk and hit him. This was the statement by the speaker (whoever he actually is) for the police department in that video…that you apparently didn’t pay very close attention to.

that alone raises some questions.

Let’s discuss why someone who was thought to have a gun on him…would need to say, “yo, go get my gun”. Didn’t the undercover cop claim that he saw him pat his waist indicating he had a gun on him? Sounds pretty strange to anyone paying attention.

44

[quote]Professor X wrote:
NDM wrote:
The desired outcome is the car stopping, which means taking out the driver. Even if the driver didn’t know the guy he hit was a cop, he still tried to kill someone. And regardless of who that person is, they have the right to protect their own life.

Assumption number one. Again, the undercover cop WALKED IN FRONT OF THE MOVING CAR. It isn’t like they ran on the sidewalk and hit him. This was the statement by the speaker (whoever he actually is) for the police department in that video…that you apparently didn’t pay very close attention to.

that alone raises some questions.

Let’s discuss why someone who was thought to have a gun on him…would need to say, “yo, go get my gun”. Didn’t the undercover cop claim that he saw him pat his waist indicating he had a gun on him? Sounds pretty strange to anyone paying attention. [/quote]

Maybe he was talking shit, maybe he wasn’t. This isn’t a game of a poker, you don’t call someone’s bluff and hope it’s just a bluff. He could have had the gun on him, or he could have had it in the car. A gun wasn’t found. They didn’t know there wasn’t a gun until the search warrant was issued. Sorry, but when someone says they have a gun, it’s best to believe them and act as if they do. If you were on a plane and someone said they had a bomb would you call bullshit on them? I think not.

45

[quote]NDM wrote:
They didn’t know there wasn’t a gun. [/quote]

They didn’t know there WAS a gun either. That didn’t stop the apparent attempt to block the car in and have a cop walk in front of a moving vehicle out of uniform.

46

"An undercover officer walked closely behind Bell and his friends as they headed for their car. As he walked toward the front of the vehicle, they drove forward ? striking him and a nearby undercover police vehicle.

The officer who had followed the group on foot was apparently the first to open fire, Kelly said. That officer had served on the force for five years. One 12-year veteran fired his weapon 31 times, emptying two full magazines, Kelly said.

It was the first time any of the officers, all of whom carried 9 mm handguns, had been involved in a shooting, he said.

At some point, Bell backed his car up onto the sidewalk, hitting a building gate. He then drove forward, striking the police vehicle a second time, Kelly said."

Didn’t someone mention that he walked in front of a moving car? He walked up to the car and they tried to run him over, then they smashed the van, twice. This is self defence. Should they have just sat there and took it? You say that he got in the way of a moving car. Did this car not have brakes? Why did the driver proceed forward after a pedestrian came into the path of his vehicle? This alone raises some questions…

47

[quote]GERRY.P.SHARMAN wrote:
You put an officer of the law in harms way by attempting to assault them with a deadly weapon (THE CAR) ,and you better expect to be shot .[/quote]

If you actually know they are cops, I agree.

See my first post.

They should, absolutely. What I found most notable is during the 9:04 press debriefing given by the police explaining every known detail of the incident, including what was said by both the officers and the suspects, not once did the spokesman for the police say or even imply, “the officer identified himself”.

It seems to me like a pretty vital piece of information, yet it is conspicuously absent from the police’s description of the incident.

48

[quote]NDM wrote:

"An undercover officer walked closely behind Bell and his friends as they headed for their car. As he walked toward the front of the vehicle, they drove forward ? striking him and a nearby undercover police vehicle.

The officer who had followed the group on foot was apparently the first to open fire, Kelly said. That officer had served on the force for five years. One 12-year veteran fired his weapon 31 times, emptying two full magazines, Kelly said.

It was the first time any of the officers, all of whom carried 9 mm handguns, had been involved in a shooting, he said.

At some point, Bell backed his car up onto the sidewalk, hitting a building gate. He then drove forward, striking the police vehicle a second time, Kelly said."

Didn’t someone mention that he walked in front of a moving car? He walked up to the car and they tried to run him over, then they smashed the van, twice. This is self defence. Should they have just sat there and took it? You say that he got in the way of a moving car. Did this car not have brakes? Why did the driver proceed forward after a pedestrian came into the path of his vehicle? This alone raises some questions…

[/quote]

Did you not listen to the video? It is very strange that you would avoid what was actually stated…and go to the article that many are claiming in this thread to be biased. How about you try that again?

let me ask you, if a guy was following you that closely in regular clothes, and was now walking to the front of your vehicle and is now in front of it…the first thing you would think is “cop”?

Bullshit. Let’s not be stupid. It is much more likely that the guys in the car thought they were about to be car jacked. I know I would.

49

[quote]Professor X wrote:
NDM wrote:

"An undercover officer walked closely behind Bell and his friends as they headed for their car. As he walked toward the front of the vehicle, they drove forward ? striking him and a nearby undercover police vehicle.

The officer who had followed the group on foot was apparently the first to open fire, Kelly said. That officer had served on the force for five years. One 12-year veteran fired his weapon 31 times, emptying two full magazines, Kelly said.

It was the first time any of the officers, all of whom carried 9 mm handguns, had been involved in a shooting, he said.

At some point, Bell backed his car up onto the sidewalk, hitting a building gate. He then drove forward, striking the police vehicle a second time, Kelly said."

Didn’t someone mention that he walked in front of a moving car? He walked up to the car and they tried to run him over, then they smashed the van, twice. This is self defence. Should they have just sat there and took it? You say that he got in the way of a moving car. Did this car not have brakes? Why did the driver proceed forward after a pedestrian came into the path of his vehicle? This alone raises some questions…

Did you not listen to the video? It is very strange that you would avoid what was actually stated…and go to the article that many are claiming in this thread to be biased. How about you try that again?

let me ask you, if a guy was following you that closely in regular clothes, and was now walking to the front of your vehicle and is now in front of it…the first thing you would think is “cop”?

Bullshit. Let’s not be stupid. It is much more likely that the guys in the car thought they were about to be car jacked. I know I would.[/quote]

So they thought they were gonna get carjacked. So run the guy over. Okay.

The cops thought they had a gun, so they lit the car up.

The actions of the police are supported by your logic. Both parties thought their lives were in danger. Both parties reacted. The cops came out alive. What’s the problem?

50

[quote]NDM wrote:
Professor X wrote:
NDM wrote:
The desired outcome is the car stopping, which means taking out the driver. Even if the driver didn’t know the guy he hit was a cop, he still tried to kill someone. And regardless of who that person is, they have the right to protect their own life.

Assumption number one. Again, the undercover cop WALKED IN FRONT OF THE MOVING CAR. It isn’t like they ran on the sidewalk and hit him. This was the statement by the speaker (whoever he actually is) for the police department in that video…that you apparently didn’t pay very close attention to.

that alone raises some questions.

Let’s discuss why someone who was thought to have a gun on him…would need to say, “yo, go get my gun”. Didn’t the undercover cop claim that he saw him pat his waist indicating he had a gun on him? Sounds pretty strange to anyone paying attention.

Maybe he was talking shit, maybe he wasn’t. This isn’t a game of a poker, you don’t call someone’s bluff and hope it’s just a bluff. He could have had the gun on him, or he could have had it in the car. A gun wasn’t found. They didn’t know there wasn’t a gun until the search warrant was issued. Sorry, but when someone says they have a gun, it’s best to believe them and act as if they do. If you were on a plane and someone said they had a bomb would you call bullshit on them? I think not. [/quote]

First off, I agree with you on the threat of a gun scenario (see my first post in this thread). However, with that in mind and after viewing the police debriefing, some significant facts come to light that really makes me wonder about their procedure:

  1. One of the undercover officers inside the club heard the guy brag to a stripper that he had a gun and saw him pat his waist to indicate where it was at approx. 3 AM. The officer immediately went outside to report what he had seen and heard to his supervisor.

  2. The suspect and his friends exited the club at approx. 4 AM. and <screeeeech!>

Hold on. An entire hour passed between a possibly armed suspect being identified and him exiting the club where an arrest could be safely made.

Am I unreasonable in thinking that in that ensuing time uniformed officers should have been standing by to shake down the suspect the moment he stepped out of the club?

All this other overheard dialogue where the suspect says, “yo, go get my gun” to his friend in reference to a pissing match he’s having with a civilian third party becomes irrelevant when you consider, the suspect was already identified while inside the club an hour earlier!

Also, upon overhearing this second, more threatening statement,why allow him to even enter his vehicle, where he could possibly have access to more weapons and/or (as did happen) use the car as a weapon?

They let these guys drive for half a block before suddenly surrounding them with plain clothes cops in unmarked vehicles in a crime-ridden area.

I, for one, (knowing neither I nor anyone else in the vehicle had a firearm) would be shitting my pants and doing whatever it took to get the hell out of there before I was completely surrounded; in a car you are sitting ducks to multiple, armed attackers.

51

[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
NDM wrote:
Professor X wrote:
NDM wrote:
The desired outcome is the car stopping, which means taking out the driver. Even if the driver didn’t know the guy he hit was a cop, he still tried to kill someone. And regardless of who that person is, they have the right to protect their own life.

Assumption number one. Again, the undercover cop WALKED IN FRONT OF THE MOVING CAR. It isn’t like they ran on the sidewalk and hit him. This was the statement by the speaker (whoever he actually is) for the police department in that video…that you apparently didn’t pay very close attention to.

that alone raises some questions.

Let’s discuss why someone who was thought to have a gun on him…would need to say, “yo, go get my gun”. Didn’t the undercover cop claim that he saw him pat his waist indicating he had a gun on him? Sounds pretty strange to anyone paying attention.

Maybe he was talking shit, maybe he wasn’t. This isn’t a game of a poker, you don’t call someone’s bluff and hope it’s just a bluff. He could have had the gun on him, or he could have had it in the car. A gun wasn’t found. They didn’t know there wasn’t a gun until the search warrant was issued. Sorry, but when someone says they have a gun, it’s best to believe them and act as if they do. If you were on a plane and someone said they had a bomb would you call bullshit on them? I think not.

First off, I agree with you on the threat of a gun scenario (see my first post in this thread). However, with that in mind and after viewing the police debriefing, some significant facts come to light that really makes me wonder about their procedure:

  1. One of the undercover officers inside the club heard the guy brag to a stripper that he had a gun and saw him pat his waist to indicate where it was at approx. 3 AM. The officer immediately went outside to report what he had seen and heard to his supervisor.

  2. The suspect and his friends exited the club at approx. 4 AM. and <screeeeech!>

Hold on. An entire hour passed between a possibly armed suspect being identified and him exiting the club where an arrest could be safely made.

Am I unreasonable in thinking that in that ensuing time uniformed officers should have been standing by to shake down the suspect the moment he stepped out of the club?

All this other overheard dialogue where the suspect says, “yo, go get my gun” to his friend in reference to a pissing match he’s having with a civilian third party becomes irrelevant when you consider, the suspect was already identified while inside the club an hour earlier!

Also, upon overhearing this second, more threatening statement,why allow him to even enter his vehicle, where he could possibly have access to more weapons and/or (as did happen) use the car as a weapon?

They let these guys drive for half a block before suddenly surrounding them with plain clothes cops in unmarked vehicles in a crime-ridden area.

I, for one, (knowing neither I nor anyone else in the vehicle had a firearm) would be shitting my pants and doing whatever it took to get the hell out of there before I was completely surrounded; in a car you are sitting ducks to multiple, armed attackers.[/quote]

Best.Post.

So why is everyone else missing this?

A guy who is believed to have a gun ON HIM…then goes outside and says, “yo, go get my gun”? What? This was some shitty police work.

52

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Digital Chainsaw wrote:
NDM wrote:
Professor X wrote:
NDM wrote:
The desired outcome is the car stopping, which means taking out the driver. Even if the driver didn’t know the guy he hit was a cop, he still tried to kill someone. And regardless of who that person is, they have the right to protect their own life.

Assumption number one. Again, the undercover cop WALKED IN FRONT OF THE MOVING CAR. It isn’t like they ran on the sidewalk and hit him. This was the statement by the speaker (whoever he actually is) for the police department in that video…that you apparently didn’t pay very close attention to.

that alone raises some questions.

Let’s discuss why someone who was thought to have a gun on him…would need to say, “yo, go get my gun”. Didn’t the undercover cop claim that he saw him pat his waist indicating he had a gun on him? Sounds pretty strange to anyone paying attention.

Maybe he was talking shit, maybe he wasn’t. This isn’t a game of a poker, you don’t call someone’s bluff and hope it’s just a bluff. He could have had the gun on him, or he could have had it in the car. A gun wasn’t found. They didn’t know there wasn’t a gun until the search warrant was issued. Sorry, but when someone says they have a gun, it’s best to believe them and act as if they do. If you were on a plane and someone said they had a bomb would you call bullshit on them? I think not.

First off, I agree with you on the threat of a gun scenario (see my first post in this thread). However, with that in mind and after viewing the police debriefing, some significant facts come to light that really makes me wonder about their procedure:

  1. One of the undercover officers inside the club heard the guy brag to a stripper that he had a gun and saw him pat his waist to indicate where it was at approx. 3 AM. The officer immediately went outside to report what he had seen and heard to his supervisor.

  2. The suspect and his friends exited the club at approx. 4 AM. and <screeeeech!>

Hold on. An entire hour passed between a possibly armed suspect being identified and him exiting the club where an arrest could be safely made.

Am I unreasonable in thinking that in that ensuing time uniformed officers should have been standing by to shake down the suspect the moment he stepped out of the club?

All this other overheard dialogue where the suspect says, “yo, go get my gun” to his friend in reference to a pissing match he’s having with a civilian third party becomes irrelevant when you consider, the suspect was already identified while inside the club an hour earlier!

Also, upon overhearing this second, more threatening statement,why allow him to even enter his vehicle, where he could possibly have access to more weapons and/or (as did happen) use the car as a weapon?

They let these guys drive for half a block before suddenly surrounding them with plain clothes cops in unmarked vehicles in a crime-ridden area.

I, for one, (knowing neither I nor anyone else in the vehicle had a firearm) would be shitting my pants and doing whatever it took to get the hell out of there before I was completely surrounded; in a car you are sitting ducks to multiple, armed attackers.

Best.Post.

So why is everyone else missing this?

A guy who is believed to have a gun ON HIM…then goes outside and says, “yo, go get my gun”? What? This was some shitty police work.[/quote]

We’ll just see how the story unfolds. What will your reaction be when these cops are acquitted of any wrong doing?

53

[quote]NDM wrote:
…
We’ll just see how the story unfolds. What will your reaction be when these cops are acquitted of any wrong doing?[/quote]

I expect them to get acquitted. They almost always do. That does not mean they were correct in their actions.

It is quite possible that the guys that got shot were punks and deserved it but based on the facts as they appear the cops did their jobs poorly and perhaps negligently.

54

[quote]PGA wrote:
tom63 wrote:
I’ve been trained at a high level with defensive pistol use, and the 50 rounds isn’t that disturbing. If they had a right to shoot, the number of rounds is irrelevant.

If they had no right to shoot, one round is excessive. It’s not the number, but whether they should have fired in the first place.

With a few officers, 50 rounds could be fired in 5 seconds, not 10.

But that’s not the point, even though people always focus on it. The point is I don’t think they should have even fired.

What makes a shooting legitimate or not, is often hard to understand for an untrained individual. For instance, and average person can cover 21 + ft. plus in under two seconds. this puts a police officer at risk if a person doesn’t comply with commands.

A person with a concealed knife could be a lethal threat and appear unarmed. Testing has shown even older, arthritic people could cover 7 yards in less than two seconds.

As for a car, there are multiple factors, but in this case it looks like the cops screwed up big time with the information listed.

No doubt 50 shots with 5 officers isnt that much. But ONE officer shot 31 times. Thats three times as many as any other officer at the scene.[/quote]

Very true, it’s sad but many police officers aren’t really good or disciplined shots.

As for the time frame, I’ve cleared 5 bowling pins off a table 7 yards away in just under two seconds with a pump shotgun. It is possible to shoot many times ( officers are trained to shoot until the assailant stops) , but 31 times is still much.

Which again shows you, not all cops are very good with guns. Jeff Cooper, the founder of modern pistol defense shooting once observed and stated that officers should be armed accordingly to how well they qualify. Top notch shots get a single action auto. Second tier get revolvers, while the bottom tier get baseball bats.

55


Nobody wants to address my posts…

I wonder why?

56

[quote]tom63 wrote:
PGA wrote:
tom63 wrote:
I’ve been trained at a high level with defensive pistol use, and the 50 rounds isn’t that disturbing. If they had a right to shoot, the number of rounds is irrelevant.

If they had no right to shoot, one round is excessive. It’s not the number, but whether they should have fired in the first place.

With a few officers, 50 rounds could be fired in 5 seconds, not 10.

But that’s not the point, even though people always focus on it. The point is I don’t think they should have even fired.

What makes a shooting legitimate or not, is often hard to understand for an untrained individual. For instance, and average person can cover 21 + ft. plus in under two seconds. this puts a police officer at risk if a person doesn’t comply with commands.

A person with a concealed knife could be a lethal threat and appear unarmed. Testing has shown even older, arthritic people could cover 7 yards in less than two seconds.

As for a car, there are multiple factors, but in this case it looks like the cops screwed up big time with the information listed.

No doubt 50 shots with 5 officers isnt that much. But ONE officer shot 31 times. Thats three times as many as any other officer at the scene.

Very true, it’s sad but many police officers aren’t really good or disciplined shots.

As for the time frame, I’ve cleared 5 bowling pins off a table 7 yards away in just under two seconds with a pump shotgun. It is possible to shoot many times ( officers are trained to shoot until the assailant stops) , but 31 times is still much.

Which again shows you, not all cops are very good with guns. Jeff Cooper, the founder of modern pistol defense shooting once observed and stated that officers should be armed accordingly to how well they qualify. Top notch shots get a single action auto. Second tier get revolvers, while the bottom tier get baseball bats.

[/quote]

It’s not cops that are bad shots. It’s the situation that they are in that leads to inaccurate shooting. I’d like to see you place a mag’s worth of rounds dead center on a target when your life is on the line.

57

[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
Nobody wants to address my posts…

I wonder why?[/quote]

Because they can’t immediately label you as a “cop hater” allowing them to ignore what you have to say, along with the fact that I doubt very many actually listened to the video WELL previously and simply assumed that we should give the cops the benefit of the doubt and not ask too many questions…in spite of this not making very much sense outside of the scenario that they scared the crap out of these guys which led to everything else.

Guys who scream, “yo, go get my gun” aren’t usually the bravest. They talk more because they act less.

58

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Digital Chainsaw wrote:
Nobody wants to address my posts…

I wonder why?

Because they can’t immediately label you as a “cop hater” allowing them to ignore what you have to say, along with the fact that I doubt very many actually listened to the video WELL previously and simply assumed that we should give the cops the benefit of the doubt and not ask too many questions…in spite of this not making very much sense outside of the scenario that they scared the crap out of these guys which led to everything else.

Guys who scream, “yo, go get my gun” aren’t usually the bravest. They talk more because they act less.[/quote]

Sorry Prof, you did respond previously. Sorry for the oversight.

What I meant to say was:

Nobody who has been blowing their horn all day about how justified the cops were wants to address my posts.

59

[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Digital Chainsaw wrote:
Nobody wants to address my posts…

I wonder why?

Because they can’t immediately label you as a “cop hater” allowing them to ignore what you have to say, along with the fact that I doubt very many actually listened to the video WELL previously and simply assumed that we should give the cops the benefit of the doubt and not ask too many questions…in spite of this not making very much sense outside of the scenario that they scared the crap out of these guys which led to everything else.

Guys who scream, “yo, go get my gun” aren’t usually the bravest. They talk more because they act less.

Sorry Prof, you did respond previously. Sorry for the oversight.

What I meant to say was:

Nobody who has been blowing their horn all day about how justified the cops were wants to address my posts.[/quote]

What about do your post do you want people to address? I’ve just about had it with this thread. A group of guys talked big about guns, and it got them killed. The police had reasonable grounds to believe there were weapons either on the suspects or in their vehicle. Then tried to run down the one cop, and he shot at them. The officers were in fear for their lives, so they responded accordingly. I would like to see what any of you would do in this situation.

“Oh look, I’m getting run over. I just might die here. Let’s see, they could think I’m trying to car jack them, or they are indeed trying to kill me. Maybe I should politely ask the young man behind the wheel who is trying to kill me just why he is running me over. I mean I will probably be dead by then, but I must ask every possible question before I pull the trigger.”

Get real.

60

[quote]NDM wrote:
Digital Chainsaw wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Digital Chainsaw wrote:
Nobody wants to address my posts…

I wonder why?

Because they can’t immediately label you as a “cop hater” allowing them to ignore what you have to say, along with the fact that I doubt very many actually listened to the video WELL previously and simply assumed that we should give the cops the benefit of the doubt and not ask too many questions…in spite of this not making very much sense outside of the scenario that they scared the crap out of these guys which led to everything else.

Guys who scream, “yo, go get my gun” aren’t usually the bravest. They talk more because they act less.

Sorry Prof, you did respond previously. Sorry for the oversight.

What I meant to say was:

Nobody who has been blowing their horn all day about how justified the cops were wants to address my posts.

What about do your post do you want people to address? I’ve just about had it with this thread. A group of guys talked big about guns, and it got them killed. The police had reasonable grounds to believe there were weapons either on the suspects or in their vehicle. Then tried to run down the one cop, and he shot at them. The officers were in fear for their lives, so they responded accordingly. I would like to see what any of you would do in this situation.

“Oh look, I’m getting run over. I just might die here. Let’s see, they could think I’m trying to car jack them, or they are indeed trying to kill me. Maybe I should politely ask the young man behind the wheel who is trying to kill me just why he is running me over. I mean I will probably be dead by then, but I must ask every possible question before I pull the trigger.”

Get real. [/quote]

“What about do your post…”?

My points are clearly laid out above, and again, you continue to ignore them and rave about half-truths and generalities and not the facts.